Carver v. Lehman
| Decision Date | 22 December 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 06-35176.,06-35176. |
| Citation | 558 F.3d 869 |
| Parties | Joseph CARVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph LEHMAN; Kimberly Acker; Victoria Roberts; Six to be Named Defendants, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Tyler A. Baker, Todd Gregorian, and Heather N. Mewes, Fenwick & West, LLP, Mountain View, CA, for the plaintiff-appellant.
Rob McKenna, Sara J. Olson, and Gregory J. Rosen, Office of the Washington Attorney General, Criminal Justice Division, Olympia, WA, for the defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-04-05570-RBL.
Before: STEPHEN REINHARDT, RICHARD C. TALLMAN, and MILAN D. SMITH, JR., Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr.; Concurrence by Judge Reinhardt.
The opinion and concurrence filed on December 22, 2008, and appearing at 550 F.3d 883 (9th Cir.2008) are hereby amended. The amended opinion and concurrence are filed concurrently with this order.
The petition for rehearing en banc filed January 20, 2009, remains pending.
No further petitions for rehearing or for rehearing en banc may be filed.
This case presents the question whether a Washington state law providing for convicted sex offenders' early release into community custody creates a liberty interest that is protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We hold that it does not. We therefore affirm the decision of the district court denying Carver relief in this civil rights action.
In August 1999, Joseph Dale Carver, then 20 years old, pled guilty to child molestation in the third degree. This conviction followed two prior convictions for child molestation in the first degree and a conviction for third-degree assault. Carver committed his first sex offense at age 14. He was sentenced to fifty-four months of confinement in the custody of the Washington State Department of Corrections ("DOC") for his 1999 conviction. The brief record on appeal indicates Carver committed fifteen disciplinary infractions while incarcerated, including sexual harassment of a prison staff member.
Washington Revised Code § 9.94A.728(1)(b)(ii)(B)(I) prohibits early release for those convicted of sex offenses. However, section 9.94A.728(2)(a) provides that sex offenders may become eligible for transfer to community custody in lieu of early release.1 Carver was sentenced to a consecutive thirty-six month period of community custody to begin on his adjusted release date.2 Carver's behavior as a prisoner resulted in an adjusted release date of January 13, 2003.
Before an inmate is eligible for transfer to community custody, he must submit an acceptable "release plan." WASH. REV. CODE § 9.94A.728(2)(c). Carver submitted his proposed plan in March 2002. It was denied in April 2002, pursuant to a DOC policy then in effect which provided for the categorical denial of release plans of offenders, like Carver, whom the DOC determined "appear[ed] to meet the definition of a sexually violent predator and [who had] been referred for Civil Commitment ...." DOC Policy Directive 350.200 (May 4, 2001).3 As a result of the denial of his proposed release plan, Carver served his full term of confinement.
In September 2004, Carver filed a civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that DOC officials denied him early release into community custody without affording him due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment.4 The district court, adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, granted the DOC officials' motion for summary judgment on two principal grounds: first, that Washington law does not create a liberty interest in early release into community custody and, therefore, Carver did not have a due process right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment; and second, that even if such a right existed, Defendant Lehman was entitled to qualified immunity. Carver timely appealed.
We have jurisdiction to review the district court's determination pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review de novo its grant of summary judgment and finding of qualified immunity. See Mabe v. San Bernardino County, Dep't of Pub. Soc. Servs., 237 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir.2001); Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652, 658 (9th Cir.2007).
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Our analysis of due process claims proceeds in two steps. "[T]he first asks whether there exists a liberty or property interest which has been interfered with by the State; the second examines whether the procedures attendant upon that deprivation were constitutionally sufficient." Ky. Dep't of Corr. v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460, 109 S.Ct. 1904, 104 L.Ed.2d 506 (1989) (citation omitted).
"A liberty interest may arise from either of two sources: the due process clause itself or state law." Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1089 (9th Cir.1986). Carver concedes that the Due Process Clause does not create a liberty interest in an inmate's "conditional[ ] release[ ] before the expiration of a valid sentence." Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7, 99 S.Ct. 2100, 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979). Rather, he argues that Washington's statutory scheme governing early release into community custody "uses mandatory language, `creat[ing] a presumption that ... release will be granted' ... unless certain designated findings are made, and thereby gives rise to a constitutional liberty interest." McQuillion v. Duncan, 306 F.3d 895, 901 (9th Cir.2002) (quoting Greenholtz, 442 U.S. at 12, 99 S.Ct. 2100; citing Bd. of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369, 377-78, 107 S.Ct. 2415, 96 L.Ed.2d 303 (1987)). As in prior cases, our task here is to apply the well-established mandatory language rule governing state-created liberty interests set forth by the Supreme Court in Greenholtz and Allen to the Washington sex offender statutory scheme at issue.5 See, e.g., Sass v. Cal. Bd. of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1127-28 (9th Cir.2006) (); Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 914 (9th Cir.2003) (same); McQuillion, 306 F.3d at 901-902 (same); Bermudez v. Duenas, 936 F.2d 1064, 1065-66 (9th Cir.1991) (); Baumann v. Ariz. Dep't of Corr., 754 F.2d 841, 843-45 (9th Cir.1989) (); Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Corr., 869 F.2d 461, 469-70 (9th Cir.1989) ().
Washington law mandates that an individual convicted of a sex offense be sentenced to a term of community custody that "shall begin either upon completion of the term of confinement or at such time as the offender is transferred to community custody in lieu of earned release." WASH. REV. CODE § 9.94A.710(1). Unlike other inmates, then, a convicted sex offender who accrues "earned release time ... for good behavior and good performance" is not entitled to early release; rather, he is eligible for discretionary transfer into community custody at an earlier date if his proposed placement is appropriate. Id. § 9.94A.728(1), (2)(a). The law requires the DOC to develop a suitable program to effectuate the transfer to community custody of such inmates. See id. § 9.94A.728(1). As part of that program, the DOC must "require the offender to propose a release plan that includes an approved residence and living arrangement." Id. § 9.94A.728(2)(c). The law then describes how the DOC, in exercising its broad discretion, should evaluate such release plans:
The department may deny transfer to community custody status in lieu of earned release time pursuant to subsection (1) of this section if the department determines an offender's release plan, including proposed residence location and living arrangements, [1] may violate the conditions of the sentence or conditions of supervision, [2] place the offender at risk to violate the conditions of the sentence, [3] place the offender at risk to reoffend, or [4] present a risk to victim safety or community safety. The department's authority under this section is independent of any court-ordered condition of sentence or statutory provision regarding conditions for community custody or community placement....
Id. § 9.94A.728(2)(d) (emphasis added).
In order to comply with the statute, the DOC promulgated Policy Directive 350.200. Under the version of this policy in force when Carver submitted his release plan, the DOC instructed that release plans of sex offenders be assessed to determine "the degree of risk for victims and potential victims of similar age or circumstances" and to ensure that, subject to certain exceptions, "[s]ex offenders will not return to a residence where minor victim(s) or other children of similar age are present in the residence." DOC Policy Directive 350.200 (May 4, 2001). This Policy Directive specified that a residence proposed by an offender within a release plan could be denied if the proposed location would place the offender in violation of court-imposed conditions; at the likely risk to re-offend; or in close proximity to the minor victim(s), schools, child care centers, playgrounds, or other facilities where children of similar age and circumstances surrounding the conviction are present and who may be put at substantial risk of harm by the offender residing at that location.6 The DOC's policy also provided for the categorical denial of release plans "if the End of Sentence Review...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
John Doe v. Kerry
...the government, and the procedures attendant upon that deprivation must have been constitutionally insufficient. See Carver v. Lehman, 558 F.3d 869, 872 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Ky. Dep't of Corr. v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460 (1989)). Thus, to state a claim for violation of procedural due......
- Farrow v. Lipetzky
-
Hardesty v. Sacramento Metro. Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., Civ. No. S–10–2414 KJM JFM.
...Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the state from depriving a person of property without due process of law. Carver v. Lehman, 558 F.3d 869, 872 (9th Cir.2009). There are two steps in the analysis of a due process claim: the court must determine whether plaintiffs have a protected p......
-
Bryan v. United States
...1203 (9th Cir. 2013) (opining that '"[n]o opinion of this circuit becomes final until the mandate issues,"' quoting Carver v. Lehman, 558 F.3d 869, 878 (9th Cir. 2009), and citing Fed. R. App. P. 41(c), 1998 Adv. Comm. Note ("A court of appeals' judgment or order is not final until issuance......
-
Sentencing
...Cir. 2016) (no liberty interest because no expectation created by state statute designating parole as discretionary); Carver v. Lehman, 558 F.3d 869, 875 (9th Cir. 2009) (no liberty interest because no expectation created by state statute using only permissive language); Straley v. Utah Bd.......
-
VACATUR PENDING EN BANC REVIEW.
...binding authority and must be followed unless and until it is overruled by a body competent to do so."). (179.) Carver v. Lehman, 558 F.3d 869, 878-79 (9th Cir. 2009) ("Until the mandate has issued, opinions can be, and regularly are, (180.) See supra note 133 (explaining that en banc court......